PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments • Hacker News Board

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#31

Post by vanniv » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:13 PM UTC

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #2

I am not optimistic about the future of sustainable specialized materials. It seems very likely that the same structures that give modern high tech materials their unique abilities are the same ones that make them so environmentally unfriendly.

Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that anything actually makes the cut in the long run.

Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#32

Post by acdha » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #25

nwah1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are in the middle of a biotech revolution. Figuring out how to scale up bioengineered materials is a likely source of impressive materials. Nature is full of stuff like spider silk, chitin, bone, phosphorescent materials, sponges,etc.

"Natural" materials can be just as toxic as manufactures ones.

Yes, but it’s less common to have completely unknown effects and from the perspective of pollution they have the desirable property of being broken down quickly when discarded or if bits flake off during normal use. That still doesn’t mean you can’t overload the ecosystem but it does mean that problems can self-correct more.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#33

Post by karlkeefer » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #19

elric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading something about the trillions of chiken bones we discard annually are something of a problem. "The dose makes the poison" seems to apply to the environment as much as it does to the individual.

Curious what the problem is? Animals with bones have existed for hundreds of millions of years. The environment knows what to do with them. PFCs by contrast do not exist naturally in the world and they act as a toxin in the environment.

I can't speak to the actual problems from chicken bones, but scale may be part of the explanation.

We are producing something like 50 billion chickens for slaughter every year. I don't think that estimate includes laying hens or culled males, either. The scale of chicken production is bonkers relative to natural bird populations.

The most abundant wild bird species is on the order of 1.5 billion. They are sparrow-sized and that's not their annual number.

Framed animals dwarf wild mammals and wild birds by mass:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/total-biomass-weight-...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#34

Post by stevage » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:17 PM UTC

wyre wrote: post #13

For anyone not familiar with what makes Shakedry so revolutionary is its ability to be waterproof, highly breathable, and incredibly lightweight. Its weight and breathability make it incredible for active sports like cycling or running. These jackets weigh around 100-150g depending on features and size and can pack into the pocket of a cycling Jersey, all while being waterproof and preventing the athlete from overhea…

Weird, I'm a keen cyclist and very into outdoor gear, and I've never heard of it. There are now many waterproof fabrics though, it's very hard to tell one strong claim from another.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#35

Post by vanniv » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

elric wrote: post #15

nwah1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are in the middle of a biotech revolution. Figuring out how to scale up bioengineered materials is a likely source of impressive materials. Nature is full of stuff like spider silk, chitin, bone, phosphorescent materials, sponges,etc.

I remember reading something about the trillions of chiken bones we discard annually are something of a problem. "The dose makes the poison" seems to apply to the environment as much as it does to the individual.

trillions of kg/yr of anything will effect the environment in some way, since "the environment" is just the emergent properties of all of the things in the earth system and trillions of kg/yr of stuff is a lot of stuff. If you added (or removed) 10^12 kg of water (or literally anything else) to the planet, it would change the environment in detectable ways.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#36

Post by ghaff » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #11

downvotetruth wrote: post #5

> Gore is committing to a "goal for being free of PFCs of Environmental Concern." That doesn't affect the ePTFE membrane though because, according to the brand, ePTFE "is inert, insoluble in water, extremely stable and not biodegradable. Therefore, it does not degrade to become a source of PFCs of Environmental Concern." Gore continuation: biodegradable:degradeable ::(->) unbiodegradable:undegradeable

It's more of a case that they as a business have no way of making money without this pollutant not that the pollutant itself is not an issue. I have worn plenty of boots with Gore-Tex reinforced regions and they most definitely break down and become frail and brittle given enough kilometers of trekking.

I'm honestly not convinced how much good Gore-Tex does in a boot. I've bought boots with Gore-Tex because I liked them for other reasons but I'm not sure they were appreciably more water resistant than those that were "waterproof." Certainly my heavy leather boots (or my winter books that have rubber or whatever on the lower part of the boot) are more resistant.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#37

Post by zymhan » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

This is a surprisingly in-depth article, I found it very informative.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#38

Post by persedes » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:23 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #4

Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level properties? Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.

Mushrooms have a protein that can do so on their outer layers (hydrophobin). Worked in a biotech company that was researching it, not sure what came out of it.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#39

Post by justinator » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

sirsinsalot wrote: post #16

I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and amazing for tents and shells.

Nikwax doesn't waterprood anything. It makes water on the surface of materials bead and not wet out so fast. The fabric needs still to be, "waterproof".

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#40

Post by secondcoming » Sun, Dec 04, 2022, 7:29 PM UTC

sirsinsalot wrote: post #16

I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and amazing for tents and shells.

Unless your tent/garment also has taped/sealed seams then it'll never be waterproof; this is why some garments are marketed as being only 'water repellant'.